MetaFilter posts tagged with hate and Israelhttp://www.metafilter.com/tags/hate+Israel
Posts tagged with 'hate' and 'Israel' at MetaFilter.Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:08:00 -0800Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:08:00 -0800en-ushttp://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss60Niza Yanay - the ideology of hatred: the psychic power of discoursehttp://www.metafilter.com/121891/Niza%2DYanay%2Dthe%2Dideology%2Dof%2Dhatred%2Dthe%2Dpsychic%2Dpower%2Dof%2Ddiscourse
<a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/11/2012111311121962980.html">"The Ideology of Hatred": An interview with Niza Yanay</a> - "Once we understand how hatred operates as an apparatus of power relations, and particularly how the discourse of hatred is motivated and mobilised in national conflicts, serious questions about misrecognition, veiled desires and symptomatic expressions arise. These questions have, to a large extent, been left unaddressed in studies of hatred between groups in conflict." Niza Yanay teaches in the Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev in Israel. She has written on the ideology of hatred, national conflicts, and prejudice and stereotypes; her new book is <i>The Ideology of Hatred: The Psychic Power of Discourse</i> (<a href="http://books.google.ca/books?id=ZQcftml1XM8C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_atb#v=onepage&q&f=false">an extensive sample of this book is available on Google Books</a>).
More from Gordon's interview with Yanay:
<blockquote>YANAY: ...After 9/11, the word hate began colonising new spheres, operating as a social and political force that can both manipulate and mobilise an entire public in very specific ways.
People began using the word hatred in the context of terrorism, particularly referring to Islamic groups who had expressed anger and criticism towards the West and the ravages of capitalism. The word hatred was thus transformed, becoming a signifier for danger, mostly the danger of Islam. In President Bush's rhetoric, the world was schematically divided between Muslims who hate on the one hand, and the West which had become the target of irrational hate on the other hand. I found it interesting that the West does not hate.
This distinction between hatred as an experience and hatred as ideology underscored the need to ask new questions about the relation between politics and hatred. And these new questions, I believe, need to focus on power relations between different groups, such as coloniser and colonised, ruler and subject...
GORDON: Can you give me a concrete example of this ideology at work?
YANAY: Most people consider "suicide bombings" as motivated by hate, while very few people consider air strikes on populated areas to be hate crimes. The media often describes the suicide attack as a hate crime, but I have never come across a report describing the US drone attacks in Pakistan - that have killed over 3,500 people - as hate crimes. This suggests that hatred as ideology is at work. And this ideology helps determine who is blamed for being the initiators of hate, who becomes the target of hatred, and, in fact, when hatred counts as hatred at all...
YANAY: The point I want to make is that we need to start thinking about the ideology of hatred as a symptom of desire. This might sound contradictory to many people, but actually hatred is always constructed within an already inevitable bond between two unequal groups or sides of rival power. Intense hatred assumes a prior and intense relationship.
Consider the famous speeches of President Habyarimana of Rwanda between 1973 and 1994. He continuously attacked the Tutsi for being counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie traitors; but at the same time, he constantly referred to them as brothers. This, I argue, is typical and symptomatic.
The use of intimate familial language to characterise the so-called traitor is a common practice in many ideologies of hatred. So, when we hear, speak of, or examine hatred, we must pay particular attention to issues of proximity, attachment, intimacy, desire and even love. Of course, these forces are not obvious when we think of hatred. But, if we want to understand how people become our hated enemy we must study the conditions of closeness and proximity.
GORDON: Someone might say that this is counter-intuitive. Don't we commonly understand hatred in terms of distance, difference and enmity?
YANAY: You are right to say that the ideology of hatred produces and means to produce separation and estrangement. But this is exactly my point. The paradox of hatred is that hatred aims to produce distance precisely because the two rivals are considered to be too close, too intertwined.
Think about the Hutu and the Tutsi, the Serbs and the Croats, the Turks and the Armenians, the Israelis and the Palestinians, and so on. I am not simply saying that love can turn into hatred or vice versa, but that hatred is always an ambivalent experience and a hyperbolic concept. One cannot hate an individual or a group without attachment and closeness, without love. Lack of attachment tends to produce indifference, not hatred.</blockquote>
*Glenn Greenwald in the Guardian - <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/study-obama-drone-deaths">New research shows the terrorizing impact of drones in Pakistan, false statements from US officials, and how it increases the terror threat</a>
*Mark LeVine in Al Jazeera - <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/09/201292661444773258.html">Why 'they' still don't hate 'us': the myopic nature of the 'us' versus 'them' worldview</a>
*John Miller in e-flux - <a href="http://www.e-flux.com/journal/politics-of-hate-in-the-usa-part-i-repressive-tolerance/">Politics of Hate in the USA, Part I: Repressive Tolerance</a> (followed by <a href="http://www.e-flux.com/journal/politics-of-hate-in-the-usa-part-ii-right-wing-mysticism-and-beliefs/">part II</a> and <a href="http://www.e-flux.com/journal/politics-of-hate-in-the-usa-part-iii-posse-comitatus-grassroots-rebellion-and-secret-societies/">part III</a>)
*Llezlie L. Green - <a href="http://www.author-me.com/nonfiction/sexualviolence.html">Sexual violence against Tutsi women in Rwanda in 1994</a> - specifically, point #2 "Gender propaganda" <small>(trigger warning)</small>
*Michalinos Zembylas - <a href="http://users.auth.gr/marrep/THALIS/PUBS/ZEMPYLAS/pdf%20article%20zembylas.pdf">The affective politics of hatred: implications for education</a> (PDF file)
*Conor Friedersdorf in the Atlantic - <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/11/what-high-school-taught-millennials-about-the-war-on-terrorism/265192/">What High School Taught Millennials About the War on Terrorism</a> tag:metafilter.com,2012:site.121891Thu, 15 Nov 2012 16:08:00 -0800flexIt's Tuesdayhttp://www.metafilter.com/64609/Its%2DTuesday
<a href="http://www.martinamisweb.com/">Martin Amis</a> on <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article2424020.ece">9/11 and the cult of death</a>: <blockquote>"Let us briefly trundle through the argument for moral equivalence, and let us begin with a trio of ascertainable truths. First, the years 1947 and 1948 saw two imperialistic decisions that guaranteed an increase in hostility between Muslim and nonMuslim: the partition of India along religious lines, and the establishment of the state of Israel. (These decisions also led to, but did not invent, murderous hostility between Muslim and Muslim – in East Pakistan, in Gaza). Second, throughout the 1970s the Arab regimes sponsored by the US started to head off political dissent by guiding the opposition towards Islamic fundamentalism. And, third, in the 1980s the US backed the Mujahidin against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and also helped to fund the Pakistani madrassas, whose graduates (all of them unemployable zealots) increased from 30,000 in 1987 to well over half a million by 2001.
Thereafter, or so the equivalence argument goes, the Islamist vanguard, having wearied of seeing the battles fought exclusively on its own soil, visited a taste of this destruction on the West. Which turns out to suit the neocons and Christian Zionists, who can now place the US under military rule while they prepare their push for Islamic oil and for Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. The goals of the so-called “terrorists” (who are merely responding in kind to state terrorism from the US and its clients) are not delusive or messianic but solemnly political. So it has always been: the oppressed struggle against the oppressor; the wrongs of the past rise up to avenge themselves on the present."</blockquote> tag:metafilter.com,2007:site.64609Tue, 11 Sep 2007 05:15:38 -0800chuckdarwinHatred via weblog.http://www.metafilter.com/28985/Hatred%2Dvia%2Dweblog
<a href="http://www.jewishinternetassociation.org/jia_weblog.php">Hatred via weblog.</a> The <a href="http://www.jewishinternetassociation.org/">Jewish Internet Association</a>, a tax-exempt, non-profit California corporation, considers the Internet a battleground, where "every channel must be utilized to resist and convert others to our defense and support." A whois showed they have the same mailing address as <a href="http://www.palestinefacts.org">palestinefacts.org</a>. However, examining <a href="http://www.jewishinternetassociation.org/jia_weblog.php">their weblog</a> reveals an agenda that is every bit as hateful as Hamas.<br><br>
From a recent entry:
<em>"The Palestinian Arabs go through a pretense of having a government" .... "This must end. In the past the only way such murderous, bastard regimes have ended was through massive destruction of their people and lands." .... "The same process will be required to end the fraudulant "peace process" and come to the point where there can be a new start."</em><br><br>
The JIA site links to a guide for <a href="http://haganah.org.il/resources/howto/">shutting down offensive websites</a>. Do you think the same techniques would work against them too? tag:metafilter.com,2003:site.28985Thu, 16 Oct 2003 06:01:33 -0800insomnia_ljA memo to American Muslims,http://www.metafilter.com/11544/A%2Dmemo%2Dto%2DAmerican%2DMuslims
<a href="http://www.ijtihad.org/memo.htm">A memo to American Muslims,</a> in Muqtedar Khan's Column on Islamic Affairs, A Return to Enlightenment. "Muslims, including American Muslims have been practicing hypocrisy on a grand scale." "While we loudly and consistently condemn Israel for its ill treatment of Palestinians we are silent when Muslim regimes abuse the rights of Muslims and slaughter thousands of them. Remember Saddam and his use of chemical weapons against Muslims (Kurds)?. Remember Pakistani army’s excesses against Muslims (Bengalis)?. Remember the Mujahideen of Afghanistan and their mutual slaughter? Have we ever condemned them for their excesses? Have we demanded international intervention or retribution against them? Do you know how the Saudis treat their minority Shiis? Have we protested the violation of their rights? But we all are eager to condemn Israel; not because we care for rights and lives of the Palestinians, we don’t. We condemn Israel because we hate 'them'".
tag:metafilter.com,2001:site.11544Tue, 16 Oct 2001 18:17:59 -0800semmi